FONDREN VS. LOPEZ (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the child support modification order for an abuse of discretion, Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996), noting that an abuse occurs when findings are not supported by substantial evidence, Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018), defined as evidence a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment, Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Modification is appropriate upon a factual or legal change in circumstances since entry of the support order, Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 433, 216 P.3d 213, 229 (2009), and NRS 125B.145(4) deems a 20 percent or greater change in gross monthly income a changed circumstance requiring review. Upon such a finding, the court has discretion to modify in accordance with the administrative guidelines, Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 8, 565 P.3d 330, 336 (Ct. App. 2025); see also NRS 125B.145(2)(b). The court set out the guideline framework: a support order must be based on the obligor's earnings, income, and other evidence of ability to pay, with a rebuttable presumption that the child's basic needs are met by the NAC Chapter 425 guidelines, NAC 425.100(1), (2); deviations require supporting findings, NAC 425.100(3). Discretionary downward adjustment factors include legal responsibility for the support of others, NAC 425.150(1)(b), the relative income of both households, other necessary expenses for the child's benefit, and the obligor's ability to pay, NAC 425.150(1)(f), (g), (h), and the court must consider and equitably divide reasonable child care costs, NAC 425.130. Here, the district court applied NAC 425.140(1) (16% of the first $6,000 of income, 8% of income up to $10,000, and 4% thereafter) to a found gross monthly income of $11,032, yielding $1,321, then added $97 for the child's health insurance and subtracted $150 for Logan's support of another minor child, for a total of $1,268 per month. Logan did not challenge the accuracy of the calculation or dispute changed circumstances; such unraised issues are forfeited, Palmieri v. Clark County, 131 Nev. 1028, 1033 n.2, 367 P.3d 442, 446 n.2 (Ct. App. 2015). His contention that the district court failed to consider his cost of living and obligations to other children was unsupported by the available record: the pre-hearing filings included his financial disclosure form acknowledging his mortgage, living costs, and costs for his other children, and the order stated the court considered all evidence presented and specifically credited him for one other supported minor child. The court declined to second-guess the district court's resolution of factual issues involving conflicting evidence, Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009). In a footnote, the panel observed that Logan did not specifically argue error in the finding that he was legally responsible for one other minor child, citing Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011). Because Logan failed to file a transcript request and provide the evidentiary hearing transcript, see NRAP 9(a)(1), (7), the court applied Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007), and necessarily presumed the missing transcript supports the district court's decision, noting it could not meaningfully review arguments concerning information presented at the hearing without it. The court also noted that the supreme court had issued notices instructing Logan that appellants without in forma pauperis status who request a transcript "must file a copy of the transcript in this court," citing NRAP 9. Finally, on judicial bias, the court held relief unwarranted because Logan did not show the district court's decisions were based on knowledge acquired outside the proceedings or reflected "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible," Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022); see In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789-90, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988) (rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally "do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification"); see also Rivero, 125 Nev. at 439, 216 P.3d at 233 (burden on the party asserting bias). Logan also failed to demonstrate this was one of the exceedingly rare cases where reassignment is necessary to preserve public confidence in judicial fairness.

In plain language

Logan Fondren and Vanessa Lopez were married in January 2008 and have one child, born in January 2009. When they divorced in March 2010, the court adopted their settlement agreement: both parents shared legal custody, Vanessa had primary physical custody, and Logan paid $747 per month, representing child support and half of the child's health care costs. That figure was based on Logan earning $3,750 per month at the time. In January 2025, Vanessa - with help from the Washoe County District Attorney's Family Support Division - asked the court to review and update the child support amount, something Nevada law allows on a three-year cycle. The paperwork filed before the hearing showed that Logan's income had grown substantially: his own financial disclosure form listed gross monthly income of $9,550.06, along with his household expenses, his mortgage, and roughly $491 per month spent on three children (not from his marriage to Vanessa) who lived with him. After a remote evidentiary hearing, the district court found Logan's gross monthly income to be $11,032 and applied Nevada's child support formula, which calculates support as percentages of income in tiers. The formula produced $1,321 per month; the court then added $97 for the child's health insurance and subtracted $150 because Logan was responsible for supporting one other minor child, arriving at $1,268 per month. Logan appealed. The Court of Appeals rejected each of Logan's arguments. First, it found that the record contradicted his claim that the district court ignored his higher California cost of living and his obligations to his other children: his own financial disclosure form listed those costs, the district court said it considered all the evidence, and the court specifically gave him a $150 reduction for supporting another child. Second, to the extent Logan argued that he presented additional information at the hearing itself, he never filed a transcript of that hearing with the appellate court - even though the supreme court had sent him notices explaining that requirement. When an appellant fails to provide a necessary transcript, the appellate court must presume the missing transcript supports the lower court's decision. Third, on Logan's claim that the judge was biased or unfair, the court found no evidence that the judge relied on information from outside the case or displayed the kind of "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible" that the law requires before relief is warranted. The court therefore affirmed the modified child support order.